Judge gets several 1,000-page motions from opioid trial plaintiffs

A $50 billion opioid suit hangs in the balance as four communities urge an Orange County judge not to toss civil claims alleging four pharmaceutical companies fueled the state's drug addiction crisis by deceptively marketing prescription opioids.

After hearing the people's case in chief during a seven-week virtual bench trial, Judge Peter Wilson could grant written motions to dismiss the false advertising, unfair competition and public nuisance claims facing opioid makers.

However, the plaintiff counties of Los Angeles, Orange and Santa Clara, along with the city of Oakland, filed 1,000-page opposition motions last week, urging Wilson to reject defense arguments that, according to the people, misstate public nuisance law and ignore evidence of an ongoing opioid crisis in the state.

"Defendants claim that the evidence regarding current opioid-prescribing levels in the jurisdictions does not reflect a public nuisance," one of the motions reads. "However, this assertion rests on a continuing misunderstanding of what is required to prove a public nuisance and the scope of the alleged public nuisance."

The governments argue that California public nuisance law does not require them to show the existence of a nuisance "condition" or "hazardous condition," as the defendants claim.

The drug companies argue the epidemic the people "perceive" is not a unitary condition but a far-flung collection of individual injuries such as opioid use disorder, emergency-room visits, and overdose deaths, amounting to nothing more than a product liability action rather than a public nuisance.

The governments, represented by Julia Spiegel of the Santa Clara County Counsel's office, argue the question of whether the opioid epidemic is a "unitary condition" is irrelevant. "Rather, the public nuisance statutes require proof of the existence of a 'nuisance,' which can be a condition, set of conditions, an act or activity, conduct, environment, or "[a]nything" that is injurious to health," one of their motion states.

The drug companies -- Teva Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Allergan PLC and Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- are accused of helping to create the opioid crisis by deceptively marketing prescription opioids as rarely addicting. Purdue Pharma, also named, is sitting out the trial, pending the completion of a bankruptcy case in New York.

Even though a hearing was scheduled for Monday, Wilson was not expected to rule until the end of the week and could continue the trial to a later date considering the mountain of written motions before him.

The outcome of the case will likely affect thousands of settlements in lawsuits filed nationwide by states and municipalities that claim Purdue Pharma and other opioid producers fueled an opioid crisis by marketing drugs as safe and effective pain treatments while downplaying the risk of addiction.

In addition to civil penalties, the people seek $50 billion to abate the opioid crisis in the plaintiff counties and city, according to attorneys involved in the suit. People v. Purdue Pharma et al., 14-00725287 (Orange Super. Ct., filed May 21, 2014).